Trench drains are well known in the prior art. They are used in situations requiring drainage of water or other liquids from flat surfaces like factory floors and the like, including parking lots, building perimeters and roadways. The trench drain generally empties into a larger drainage conduit, a sewer, a collection means, or even into the earth (where appropriate) through one or more drain outlets. Additionally, trench drains typically have a grating flush with the surface to be drained, to prevent, among other things, entry into the trench drains of undesirable objects, such as feet or tires, or leaves, branches, and other debris.
Trench drains have been in existence for many years. There are many examples of trench drain systems in the prior art, including those disclosed in the following U.S. Pat. Nos.:
U.S. Pat. No. 5,066,165 (Wofford et al.)
U.S. Pat. No. 4,815,888 (Stegmeier)
U.S. Pat. No. 4,035,092 (Brant)
U.S. Pat. No. 4,630,966 (Karbstein)
U.S. Pat. No. 4,940,359 (Van Duyn et al.).
The trench drain systems of the prior art have several disadvantages in their installation and use:
For example, in the "thin wall" trench channel system disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,066,165, problems arise due to the weak structural strength of the liner. Channel walls tend to buckle under pressure during installation as concrete is placed around them and have questionable durability and complicated installation procedures.
Certain "thick wall" trench channel systems also have a number of disadvantages. Due to the fact that the materials used in such systems are without sufficient resiliency, there exists a tendency for the channels to crack. More significant, however, is a disadvantage which results from the method by which the components are interconnected; the seals used to connect the heavy trench segments often leak and crack due to pressure on the seals, such as that caused by heavy factory floor loads and stresses. The interconnections generally form weak points in the channel system.
Another disadvantage and problem is the high costs and complexities found in the installation of both of these systems. The thick wall systems are heavy and are costly to transport to the site due to the material of manufacture, usually steel, concrete or a similar material. Additionally, due to the weight of the thick wall system components, there is a high degree of difficulty in the installation of such a system. On the other hand, the thin wall systems, which involve a liner with concrete support, are extremely complex in design and, therefore, make installation very complicated.
Furthermore, the systems of the prior art are not readily adaptable. That is, post-installation revisions in the system are very difficult and costly.